Gujarat High Court
Divisional Controller (Valsad), ... vs Legal Heirs Of Deceased Jabuben ... on 4 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2493/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2493 of 2018
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2017
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2493 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER (VALSAD), GUJARAT STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Versus
LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED JABUBEN NAGJIBHAI RABARI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARDIK C RAWAL(719) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MR JM BAROT(143) for the Defendant(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Defendant(s) No. 4
SHARMISHTA A DAVE(8735) for the Defendant(s) No. 5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 04/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal is filed against the impugned judgment and award dated 02.02.2017 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Patan in MACP No.269/2010, whereby the learned Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition and granted the compensation of Rs.7,02,880/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 11 20:36:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2493/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization.
2. The succinct facts leading to file the captioned appeal are that on 16.05.2010, in the early morning at 4:30, the deceased-Jabuben Nagjibhai Rabari along with her family members were going to attend the marriage of her nephew at Surat, therefore, they boarded the ST bus bearing registration no.GJ-18-V-1244. The driver of the said ST bus i.e. respondent no.1 before the learned Tribunal, appellant herein started to drive the bus at excessive speed, in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life and when the said bus reached near village Vanch, on Surat-Vadodara highway, the said bus dashed with the tanker bearing registration no.GJ-1-UU-4141 from the behind while overtaking the tanker. In the said accident, the deceased- Jabuben Nagjibhai Rabari sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. It is also the case of the claimants before the learned Tribunal that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 40 years and was engaged in the occupation of animal husbandry and agricultural work and thereby earning Rs.12,500/- annually, therefore, the claimants claimed the compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of death of Jabuben Nagjibhai Rabari.
3. On being served, the respondent no.1/appellant herein and respondent no.4 have chosen not to appear before the learned Tribunal, however, the ST Corporation/opponent no.2 before the learned Tribunal filed the written statement at Exh.15 and thereby denying the averments made in the claim petition in toto and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. The opponent no.3/the driver of the tanker was deleted from the array of the parties. However, the insurance company of the tanker appeared through its learned counsel but has chosen not to file any Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 11 20:36:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2493/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined written statement on record.
4. Having considered the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal vide Exh.17-A framed the following issues for determination:-
(1) Whether it is proved that the deceased sustained injuries and died on account of rashness and negligence in driving on the part of the driver of the involved vehicle in the accident?
(2) What amount, if any, the claimant/claimants is/are entitled to, by way of compensation and from which of the opponents?
(3) What order and award?
5. In order to prove their claim, the original claimants/respondent nos.1.1 to 1.4 herein led the following evidence:-
Sr. No. Evidences Exh. No.
1. Affidavit in examination chief of 26
Nagjibhai Jivabhai Rabari
2. Copy of FIR 18
3. Inquest panchnama 19
4. Panchnama of place of accident 20
5. Certificate of death 21
6. PM note 22
7. Extract of Form 7/12 and 8-A 23
8. Copy of RC book of tanker 28
9. Copy of driving license of the tanker 29
Page 3 of 8
Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 11 20:36:33 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2493/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
10. Copy of Insurance policy of tanker 32
6. The opponent no.1 i.e. the driver of the ST Corporation though not filed any written statement, but stepped into witness box and his examination-in-chief and cross-examination was recorded at Exh.36.
7. Having considered the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.7,02,880/- as a compensation along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. Further, the learned Tribunal has held jointly and severally liable the opponent nos.1 and 2 i.e. the appellant and respondent no.2 herein in the appeal to satisfy the award; however, the learned Tribunal has exonerated the respondent nos.3 to 5.
8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the ST Corporation/appellant herein challenged the impugned judgment and award on the ground of negligence.
9. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
10. Mr. Hardik C. Rawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant vehemently submitted that the driver of the ST Corporation was not negligent for causing the accident. He further submitted that the tanker bearing registration no.GJ-1-UU-4141 was lying parked at the place of accident without any reflector or indicator or without any obstruction, therefore, the ST bus hit the stationary tanker from the behind. He further submitted that it was the duty of the driver of the tanker to keep on the reflector/indicator and parking light at the time of parking the said tanker on the road. He further submitted that the driver Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 11 20:36:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2493/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined of the tanker, who parked the tanker without any reflector or indicator also negligent for causing the accident; however, the learned Tribunal has committed error in holding that the driver of the ST bus was negligent for causing the accident. He further submitted that the driver of the ST bus himself stepped into witness box and his deposition was recorded at Exh.36, wherein he deposed that the accident took place in the early morning because the driver of the tanker parked the tanker on the road without any signal or reflector, therefore, the accident occurred owing to the sole negligence of the driver of the tanker. Relying upon the deposition of the driver of the ST Corporation, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no rebuttal to the evidence of the driver of the ST bus, therefore, the learned Tribunal came to the wrong conclusion that the accident occurred owing to the sole negligence of the driver of the ST bus. He further submitted that the finding returned by the learned Tribunal on the point of negligence is perverse and therefore, the same is liable to be reversed.
11. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed the reliance on the judgment of this High Court rendered in the case of Premlata Nilamchand Sharma and Others Vs. Hirabhai Ranchhodbhai Patel and Others, reported in 1982 GLH 582 and Bajaj Allianze General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Thakor Jayantibhai Piraji, reported in 2021 (0) AIJEL-HC 243885. Relying upon the ratio of the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the present appeal deserves to be allowed.
12. On the other hand, Mr. J.M. Barot, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original claimants vehemently submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and award and the learned Tribunal Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 11 20:36:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2493/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined after appreciating the evidence on record, returned the finding on the issue of negligence. He further submitted that even otherwise the finding on the issue of negligence has attained finality as in the said accident, four persons had died and many others sustained grievous injuries. The learned Tribunal in other cases i.e. MACP Nos.1037/2012, 1284/2012, 1283/2012 and 231/2010 have returned the finding thereby holding the driver of the appellant as 100% negligent for causing the accident. He further submitted that the said findings returned by the learned Tribunal in the aforesaid MACP claim petitions have not been challenged by the appellant. Therefore, the finding on the issue of negligence has attained finality in the said petitions. He further submitted that now the appellant cannot challenge the issue of negligence. He further submitted that even otherwise, the version of the driver before the learned Tribunal is contradictory to the FIR, which was lodged by the driver of the ST Corporation himself. He further submitted that in the said FIR, he himself admitted that the tanker was not stationary, but it was going ahead the bus and while he was overtaking the said tanker at excessive speed, he hit the tanker from the behind. He further submitted that in view of the previous version of the driver of the appellant, his deposition cannot be relied upon. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly held that the driver of the appellant was negligent for causing the accident.
13. On the other hand, Mr. Sharmishta A. Dave, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance company/respondent no.5 herein vehemently submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and award. He submitted that the learned Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, has rightly appreciated and returned the finding on the issue of negligence. He further submitted Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 11 20:36:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2493/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined that there is no merit in the present appeal, therefore, the same deserves to be rejected.
14. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and having gone through the record, it is to be noted that there is no dispute regarding the date of accident and the involvement of the vehicle. It is also on record that the FIR came to be lodged by the driver of the ST bus. The said FIR has been proved at Exh.18. In the said FIR, the driver of the ST bus himself admitted that the accident occurred while he was overtaking the tanker at excessive speed. He nowhere stated in the FIR that at the time of accident, the tanker was stationary, nor he stated that the reflector of the tanker was not on. But when he stepped into the witness box, he changed his version and brought a new story before the learned Tribunal that at the time of accident, the tanker was lying parked on the road without any reflector/indicator and parking signal. Therefore, the version narrated by the driver of the ST bus before the learned Tribunal is not reliable, as it is self contradictory to his previous version as he narrated in the FIR. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in returning the finding on the issue of negligence.
15. So far as the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant rendered by this High Court in the case of Bajaj Allianze General Insurance Company Limited (supra) and Premlata Nilamchand Sharma and Others (supra), in my considered view, is not applicable in the facts and circumstances, as in the case on hand, the tanker was not stationary, but it was going ahead the bus and it was the driver of the appellant, who dashed his bus with the rear portion of the tanker while he was overtaking the said tanker. Therefore, in my considered opinion, Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 11 20:36:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2493/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in returning the finding on the issue of negligence. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the captioned appeal is devoid of merits and stands dismissed.
16. The amount, if any, lying deposited with the registry of this court, be transmitted forthwith to the learned Tribunal concerned. The learned Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount of compensation, if any, lying deposited with it to the original claimants after deducting deficit of Court fee, if any after due verification. The Civil Application is also disposed of accordingly.
17. Record & Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the learned Tribunal concerned.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J) HARSHIT Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 11 20:36:33 IST 2025